4 ms·

>If you wrote a law book designed for lay folk, it would fly off the shelves into the hands of people who become self-represented litigants who would then screw

>If you wrote a law book designed for lay folk, it would fly off the shelves into the hands of people who become self-represented litigants who would then screw up their lives and give bad advice to their friends. the same could be said about very many things - from biology to auto repair. it's a very strange position to take on education because the converse is also possible - the more educated someone becomes the more humble they become about how nuanced/subtle the topic really is.

cormacrelf 7y ago
I bet car manufacturers wish people would stick to the guidance they distribute for the engines they make. But it’ll never happen. There will never be a professional organisation to weed out bad or fraudulent mechanics, so people are always going to need the basic knowledge to work out when they’re being conned. Medicine, law ... professions that self-regulate are justified in caring that people don’t try to DIY, because they present a credible and reliable way. You might be tempted to argue protectionism, but that only really flies when some specific job is so completely studied and process-driven that you don’t need the professionals any more. Not exactly the case when you’re talking about interpreting appellate cases or similar, judging by the context of Kerr’s article. I don’t know what you mean about humility. (Oh - re those new readers. Yes, it’s possible someone will read Law For Dummies and back out recognising the vastness of their incomprehension. But those people were likely to hire a lawyer for real problems already. We’re worried about the people who want to confirm that they’ll be fine without seeking advice. Unless you just lace it with recommendations to seek a lawyer, in which case congratulations, you are a local renting tribunal’s public information officer.)

cormacrelf 7y ago

I bet car manufacturers wish people would stick to the guidance they distribute for the engines they make. But it’ll never happen. There will never be a professional organisation to weed out bad or fraudulent mechanics, so people are always going to need the basic knowledge to work out when they’re being conned. Medicine, law ... professions that self-regulate are justified in caring that people don’t try to DIY, because they present a credible and reliable way. You might be tempted to argue protectionism, but that only really flies when some specific job is so completely studied and process-driven that you don’t need the professionals any more. Not exactly the case when you’re talking about interpreting appellate cases or similar, judging by the context of Kerr’s article. I don’t know what you mean about humility. (Oh - re those new readers. Yes, it’s possible someone will read Law For Dummies and back out recognising the vastness of their incomprehension. But those people were likely to hire a lawyer for real problems already. We’re worried about the people who want to confirm that they’ll be fine without seeking advice. Unless you just lace it with recommendations to seek a lawyer, in which case congratulations, you are a local renting tribunal’s public information officer.)